Gameday Thread: #14 Baylor (12-2; 1-0) vs #18 BYU (12-2; 0-1)

I know I'm in the minority, but I always thought LJ gave effort and tried his best on defense. He was just naturally a very bad defender. And when Love and Key were as bad defensively as LJ or maybe worse, there was nowhere to hide any of them.

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

I noticed in Kenpom our defensive rating has been getting better the past couple of weeks--down to the high 60s which is pretty good-sized drop. We are getting better defensively. Looking back over the 10-15 years, Baylor has been in the 30-60 range on adjusted defense (we were actually higher rated in the year after the NC and a couple of years in the Zone era). No we are not nearly as good as Houston defensively. Houston's problem, akin to a number of hyper defensive teams over the years, is the inability to make shots at times on offense (which is why UH went after Cryer). I remember an interview of Tom Landry (pardon the Football analogy) during the Aikman years, when he was asked what he thought of the Cowboy defense. Landry, who in my view was a great defensive mind, pointed out that the Cowboy-Aikman offense was so good, it put more pressure on the opposing offense. This, in my view is what Baylor does. If Baylor makes shots, it takes away transition points from a team like UH or Tennessee, which depends so much on them.

---

Good post. I would also point out that Baylor's offense often requires the other team to push on offense. Teams don't just get down by 12 or 14 and keep doing the same thing. So PPG will be higher.

We saw this with Briles' teams. PPG for the defense was high because the other team had to score to keep up.

I personally feel like defense is a more reliable as a team attribute, but a defensive oriented team is not likely to shoot themselves out of a bad night. We saw that versus UH in the Final Four. They couldn't stop us and they definitely didn't have the horses to keep up. At least a good offense has a chance to just outscore the other team.

---

KenPom stats are normalized for pace of play. The defensive and offensive stats are based on "points per possession". The basic gist is add (a) total shots plus (b) turnovers plus (c) a fraction of free throws and subtract (d) offensive rebounds then you have total possessions. Divide points scored for and against by the respective number of possessions and over the sample size of a season you have a really good points per possession number. By comparing per possession metrics, you eliminate pace of play from consideration.

There is some weird math in accounting for free throws but, in general, KenPom's statistical outlook is very solid and is really good at addressing pace of play issues.

I agree more with bear2 but I understand TWD's points.

Only balanced teams like Ku (not necessarily this year just in general) have excellent offense while demanding really strong D. College teams can't do both great generally. It's trade offs. I get that.

Examples like Tenn and Houston struggling with consistent offense. They simply stress and demand D and intensity over everything. This limits the offensive skill talent they get as highest level players don't want generally play in that type of system. There is a reason these programs have consistent FT woah. Their roster is often guys not really capable of high level offensive production

I favor elite offenses at the highest levels as talented elite offense can't be stopped by any college defense, no matter how much effort they give. BUT, you can still have a Ku level balance.. play really strong defense with elite offense. Our staff just struggles with defensive coaching. Bear2 is exactly right.

Again, not in support of a Sampson type obsession that sacrifices talent, offensive skill, etc.. for brute defense. But we could borrow some of that insistence on not accepting anything less than on that end. Some inevitable benching and tough love might be necessary to get that done

We have the physical pieces this year to be a top 35 defense (last year we didn't). No reason to be outside the top 50 on defense.

Quinton said:

---

I agree more with bear2 but I understand TWD's points.

Only balanced teams like Ku (not necessarily this year just in general) have excellent offense while demanding really strong D. College teams can't do both great generally. It's trade offs. I get that.

Examples like Tenn and Houston struggling with consistent offense. They simply stress and demand D and intensity over everything. This limits the offensive skill talent they get as highest level players don't want generally play in that type of system. There is a reason these programs have consistent FT woah. Their roster is often guys not really capable of high level offensive production

I favor elite offenses at the highest levels as talented elite offense can't be stopped by any college defense, no matter how much effort they give. BUT, you can still have a Ku level balance.. play really strong defense with elite offense. Our staff just struggles with defensive coaching. Bear2 is exactly right.

Again, not in support of a Sampson type obsession that sacrifices talent, offensive skill, etc.. for brute defense. But we could borrow some of that insistence on not accepting anything less than on that end. Some inevitable benching and tough love might be necessary to get that done

We have the physical pieces this year to be a top 35 defense (last year we didn't). No reason to be outside the top 50 on defense.

---

Kansas also consistently recruits at a higher level than we do. As much as we are an ascendant program, they are the blue-est of the blue bloods.

It's a lot easier to have an insistence for excellence on defense when you can bench your 5* stud for not playing great defense for a few possessions and replace him with another 5* stud. We're not there yet.